Episode 1 was this: Archbishops’ Council terminates contracts of ISB members
Episode 2 is here: ISB controversy continues
Today, the BBC Radio 4 programme Sunday carried a segment in which three people were interviewed by William Crawley: Jane Chevous from Survivors Voices, Jasvinder Sanghera one of the sacked ISB members, and the Archbishop of York, Stephen Cottrell.
The BBC programme is here: go to 31 minutes, 45 seconds for the start of this item. A transcript of the interview is available here.
Professor Nicholas Adams wrote a very detailed analysis of this interview on his Facebook page, and has kindly allowed me to reproduce his comments, which are here in a PDF, include suggestions for what the archbishop might more helpfully have said. Do read it all.
Earlier last week, Justin Humphreys, of the safeguarding consultancy thirtyone:eight wrote about the Archbishops’ Council’s action in this article: Why true independence matters when it comes to safeguarding. Here is a part of it
The sad news of the departure of the members of the Church of England Independent Safeguarding Board (ISB), who have persistently pursued their mandate to provide independent oversight and support the work of the Church of England’s National Safeguarding Team, is a significant setback in the progress made. It also highlights serious flaws in the way the Independent Safeguarding Board is structured in that it reports into the same body, the Archbishops Council, who oversee the day-to-day national and regional safeguarding operations that the Board has been set up to scrutinise. If a body is to exercise true independence, it must be fully independent and free from the structures and influences that it is created to oversee.
Justin Humphreys, Chief Executive at Thirtyone:eight comments, ‘While the Church of England considers its next steps, the instinct to quickly rush to “reset” the existing model should be resisted. Time should be taken to properly learn the lessons of what went wrong and why, and with the help of appropriate external expertise they must give time to understand what is needed to ensure a true and fully independent review of its safeguarding operations. This process should include victims, survivors and those with lived experience. To simply recreate what was, would be a travesty and would almost certainly be doomed to the same outcome as the arrangements we have just seen collapse.’
Helen King has written: The Independent Safeguarding Board: a ‘reset’?